Language: More Than Just Words by Lena Sze We often concern ourselves with conservative domination of public policy. But what about the discourse that gives rise to policy? When a group of people controls and guides the debate on language in a society, they inevitably begin to strip away the humanity of the "objects" about which they speak. Not only should leftists respond to specific conservative initiatives in governments and societies, but they should also force themselves into the debate, embroil themselves in the controversy. Why should a central goal of progressives be the reclamation of language and voice? Why should progressives be concerned with such intangible things when there are immediate battles to be fought? I would venture to say that without changing the skewed, one-sided foundation upon which all debates are based (the structure of language monopolized by conservatives), there are no true or lasting "victories." Liberals are often too concerned with theories and are rightly criticized for being too easily distracted from the urgency of immediate crises and for being inactive. In addressing the problem of language and the way debate is framed in this country, however, liberals should not and need not abandon the daily battles over welfare, affirmative action, immigration, and other areas of concern. How can we purport to put up a good fight if we accept the linguistic constrictions imposed by conservatives? History is brimming with examples of how dangerous it is to allow specific segments of society to decide exactly how that society speaks and, ultimately, how it thinks. When a powerful group of people can classify others and dismiss them as unworthy of consideration as partners in language, that group begins a process that disempowers the "other" and results in their marginalization and ghettoization. World War II was a time when countries all over the world saw dictatorial regimes rise to power; the Nazis in Germany, the Japanese militaristic government, the Italian fascists all organized their ideologies by setting down hierarchical classifications. Notions of superiority based on "higher" linguistic position soon manifested themselves. I am not equating the experience of horrific global war with the situation of language as it exists in this country today-that simplistic analogy would fail to show the unique characteristics of each-but I do see similarities in the distorted distribution of language and power. Currently, on any given day, in any mainstream publication, in any debate or classroom discussion, the term "politically correct" is used. No one gives thought to this term since people let it slip mindlessly. It is used so frequently that people with opinions on any variety of issues are allowed not to articulate them or justify them upon use of the term "politically correct" (political correctness, politically incorrect). It is used by progressives and conservatives alike and it is used because it is familiar. But by examining how society has so easily absorbed such a term into its everyday speech and the context in which it is used, I have noted that it always hinges upon accepting a conservative viewpoint and a conservative premise. Conservatives have a monopoly on language in society today; they construct and deconstruct at their will. Unmindful non-conservatives often fall into the trap of this language and speech. Most things "politically correct" have some history that makes a careful way of "labeling" or "identifying" both necessary and respectful. Rather than dismissing as silly a concerted effort to be conscious of and sensitive to others which occurs when people use the phrase "politically correct", people should look at the situations in which such a term is used and then form their opinions. Each specific instance in which the term is used is unique and deserves to be considered on its own merit with an understanding that sometimes things will seem absurd but are still a part of a larger spectrum that is legitimate. Conservatives have instead legitimized into speech the idea that leftists' concerns about perception and identity are undeserving of consideration. They put these concerns under the blanket of "politically correct," which now carries with it a connotation of being "ridiculous" and comical-just like those liberals and their concerns. The "debate" over ebonics last year, in some ways, exemplified the conservative grip on language. Mainstream, so-called moderates entered the debate with the pre-existing idea, cultivated by conservatives, that "Black English" was inherently invalid and so, did not even attempt to search for causes of the development of different ways of speaking. Conservatives managed to sweep under the rug problems in urban neighborhoods of color, to which they have so significantly contributed through the continuation of an inherently unfair market system and distorted value system and various administrations. All that was lost in the shuffle and the "debate" was sensationalized to such a degree that progressives were embarassed to find themselves on the defensive. Leftists and progressives cannot continue to be on the defensive, in daily battles and in the construction of language, if we are to win any battles at all. If we are, in fact, committed to win any battles, we must be on the linguistic offensive and at the same time on the front line of wearying, daily confrontations over immediate issues.

Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback